The effects of the Sunflower movement continue to be felt even after the protesters have left the legislature. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) both announced on Monday that they will not contest the party’s chairmanship election. In an instant, the heated competition between Su, Hsieh and former DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) turned into an expression of party unity and support for Tsai.
The DPP was unable to direct or manipulate the demonstrations against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s handling of the cross-strait service trade agreement, instead being reduced to providing protection, assistance and logistical support. Although the party’s ideas are close to those of the protesters, that the DPP, Taiwan’s second-largest political party, was unable to join the front lines of the movement and lead, direct or influence protesters and instead had to passively react to their demands and stand behind them has had a great impact on the party.
Su’s announcement that he is dropping out of the chairmanship election shows an understanding of the current political situation and a capacity for reflection that is becoming of a political leader. Facing the challenges of future civic movements, cross-strait relations, the year-end seven-in-one local elections and a generational change is not an easy task, and Tsai will have to shoulder a heavy load.
The protests were aimed at the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but while the KMT continues to act as if nothing has happened, it is the DPP that has picked itself up.
As the students wrapped up their protest, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continued his battle with Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) by appealing the Taipei District Court’s decision that Wang could retain his KMT membership, ignoring Wang’s rising popularity after he persuaded the students to evacuate the legislature, while Ma was unable to come up with any kind of response.
Not only is Ma’s popularity in Taiwan in the doldrums, even international media are critical of him. In addition, he is ignoring calls within his own party for party unity and to patch things up with Wang.
Wang promised the students that the agreement will only be reviewed after legislation regulating the oversight of cross-strait agreements has been passed, which resulted in Ma immediately issuing a statement saying that he wanted exactly what Wang wanted. However, the next day he instructed the party’s legislative caucus to continue with the review while an oversight act is being formulated.
Sunflower leader Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷) responded that the activists had not reached a settlement with Ma and KMT caucus whip Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) tendered his resignation.
Regardless of how loud the protests are and that both domestic and international media see the agreement as dead in the water, Ma remains in his ivory tower, where he dreams about passing the agreement and negotiating an agreement on trade in goods.
Ma is a lame-duck president, and does not face the pressure of future elections. He can ignore the voices of 500,000 protesters and that his party could lose the votes of the younger generation en masse.
Although he is a dinosaur and it might take some time for signals of any kind to reach his brain, other KMT politicians still have to deal with political realities in the wake of the Sunflower movement.
If the KMT is unable to respond to the challenge of dealing with a leader who is out of touch with public opinion and wants to avoid a disaster of titanic proportions, that challenge will spell the end of the KMT as we know it.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with